You are on page 1of 11




ISSN0976 4399

Strengtheningandrehabilitationofreinforcedconcretebeamswith opening
1 2 3 SubhajitMondal ,BandyapadhyaJ.N ,ChandraPalGautam 1,3 PostgraduationStudent,CivilEngineeringDepartment 2Professor,Civil EngineeringDepartment, Indian Instituteof Technology,Kharagpur,India

ABSTRACT Inmodernbuildingconstructionopeninginbeamsaremoreoftenusedtoprovidepassagefor utility duct and pipes. As a result storey height and material cost can be reduced. However providing an opening in the beam causes crack around opening reduces stiffness and also leadstomorecomplicatedstructuralresponse.InthispapertheuseofGlassFiberReinforced Polymer (GFRP) to strengthen and rehabilitate are discussed. In this experiment 10 beams, one solid as reference beam and other nine beams categorized as beams with openings, strengthened beams and rehabilitated beams aretested. The effectof FRP onthe deflection pattern, cracking, strain near vicinity, initial crack load, and ultimate failure load are discussed. This investigation may help the designer to provide sufficient opening in the beamswithoutreducingitscarryingcapacityfurthermore,helptounderstandthebehaviorof retrofittedbeamswithopenings. Keywords: Reinforced Concrete Beam, Rectangular Opening, GFRP, Strengthening and Rehabilitation 1.Introduction An opening into beams changes their simple behaviour to a complex one and it will cause serviceability problem. Cracks that develop near the opening seriously reduce the load carryingcapacityofthebeams.Thus,itbecomesnecessarytostudytheeffectofopeningson the beams so that it can be provided as structural elements without compromising their carrying capacities. Furthermore,the effectof opening must be considered in the designing processofbeamswithopenings. Numerous investigations have been carried out on beams with openings to predict the behavior of beams, crack propagation, effectof opening size and shapes, ontheother hand Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) can play a major role in strengthening and retrofitting of strengthdeficientanddegradedstructures.
1 Opening with height of 0.6 of beam depth may reduce the beam capacity by 75 percent . Furthermore, it is found that shear failure occurs at the opening chord of strengthened openingduetocombinationofshearfailureofconcreteandbondfailureofFRPsheetsglued to the concrete. Experimental investigations using fully wrapped shows that CFRP 13 substantiallyincreasetheshearcapacityofbeamswithoutstirrups .

External reinforcement increases the ultimate strength from 60 to 150 percent and the 9 orientation of fibers influences the shear strength contribution , also Flexural strengthening
ReceivedonJuly 2011publishedonSeptember2011


Strengtheningandrehabilitationofreinforcedconcretebeamswithopening , SubhajitMondal,J.N.Bandyapadhya ChandraPalGautam

10 byFRPcaninduceshearfailure .Furthermore,shearstrengtheningofbeamscanchangethe 5 modeoffailure .

Unfortunately only a limited number of investigations have been carried out in the past to establish the efficiency of GFRP sheet on strengthening and retrofitting of beams with openings. Carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) strengthening of beams with small 1 openingatshearzonecanchangetheirmodeoffailure . In this research GFRP sheets are used in the opening zone of beams to strengthen and rehabilitation.Theaimofthestudyistoinvestigatetheeffectofopeningontheloadcarrying capacity, deflection behavior of beams with different size of opening, strain distribution in the vicinity of opening, strengthened the beam opening and the efficiency of FRP to increased the shear capacity of damaged beams with openings. After the investigation it is foundthatGRFPcanincreasethecarryingcapacityeffectivelyforsmallopeningsonlyandit isunabletoincreasethecarryingcapacityeffectivelyforlargeopenings. ThispaperwillguidetheusertouseGFRPinabeamwithopeninganditwillgivetheidea of importance of GFRP used for the rehabilitation of damaged beam. Results of this experiment may guide to formulate the design guide lines of beams with openings and strengthenandrehabilitatedbeams. 2Experimental program 2.1ExperimentalSetup



The experimental program consists of ten beams of which one beam is solid having no openingandtheothernine beamsaredivided intothreegroupshavingthree beams ineach group.Thesizesoftheopeningare100mmwidthx100mminthefirstgroupofthreebeams, 200mm x100mm inthesecondgroupofthreebeamsand300 mm x100 mm inthethird groupofthreebeams.OB1, OB2 andOB3 arethefirstbeameachofthethreegroupswith opening and without any GFRP layer. The three beams SB1, SB2and SB3 are the second beam of each of the three groups with opening and strengthened with isotropic GFRP laminationattheopeningzone.Similarly,RB1, RB2 andRB3arethethirdbeamofeachof the three groups with opening and rehabilitatedwith GFRP lamination at the opening zone afterthey develop initial crack in the absence of GFRP lamination. The letters O, S and R represent beams with openings, strengthened beams and rehabilitated beams respectively, while the numbers 1, 2 and 3 indicate the width of opening 100, 200 and 300 mm,
InternationalJournalofCivilandStructuralEngineering Volume2Issue1 2011


Strengtheningandrehabilitationofreinforcedconcretebeamswithopening , SubhajitMondal,J.N.Bandyapadhya ChandraPalGautam

respectively.Theheightofeachopeningisfixedat100mm.Theopeningisprovidedinthe shear zone at a distance of 200 mm from the support. The reference solid beam without openingisdesignatedasRSBandhasnonumberinthesuffix.Alltenbeamsaresubjectedto twopointloadsatanincrementof1toneappliedatadistanceofonethirdofthespanfrom thetwosupports. 2.2 Materialsproperties TheconcretemixusedforallthebeamsisdesignedforaM30withawatercementratioof 0.37. Main reinforcing bars of Fe 415ofdia. 8mm attop and 12 mm at bottom are used. Rectangular closed stirrups of 6 mm mild steel bars although except in the opening zone, where U shape stirrups are used. Glass fiber reinforced polymer of thickness 0.32 mm is used for strengthening the beams. Epoxy adhesive is used to attach the GFRP to the beam surface.Theresinisa9:1mixtureofAralditeCY230andhardenerHY951.Averagecross sectionaldimensionofFRPalongwithepoxyis0.94x26.92mm.ThepropertyofFRPand EpoxyarepresentedinTable1.PropertiesofGFRParedeterminedasperASTMguidelines.

Figure3:TypicalLoadversusDeflectionplotofFRPSample Table1:PropertiesofMaterial Material Young Max. Modulus Load (MPa) (N) 3310 1242 1834 4075 Tensile stressat Yield (MPa) 63.23 Tensile Strain(%)

GFRP Epoxy

2.62 1.09

3.Experimental ResultsandDiscussion

InternationalJournalofCivilandStructuralEngineering Volume2Issue1 2011


Strengtheningandrehabilitationofreinforcedconcretebeamswithopening , SubhajitMondal,J.N.Bandyapadhya ChandraPalGautam

Available experimental data shows that shear failure of FRP strengthened beams are generallybytwomodes:firstmodeFRPrupturesandsecondmodedebondingofFRPfrom concrete surface. Sidebonded FRP strips fails in second mode only and also most of the 11 beamswithFRPUjacketsfailsinsecondmode .SomebeamsstrengthenedbyUjacketing 4 failed due to FRP rapture . Beams with FRP wrapping shows the failure in FRP only. To avoid the debonding and premature failure of beams, FRP are wrapped aroundthe opening keepingatleast80mmfromtheopeningside. Table2:PresentationofTestResult Beam Opening Size (WxH) (mm) 100x100 200x100 300x100 100x100 200x100 300x100 100x100 200x100 300x100 Concrete Strength (MPa) 44 42 42 39 45 40 41 43 42 43 Initial Crack load(kN) 86 64 62 40 62 59 60 40 61 60 Ultimate load (kN) 156 104 96 95 126 104 98 120 105 92


Table3: ChangeinStrengthandModeofFailure Beam Ri




Ru Ri 7 10 14 8 2 7 30 3 10

Mode offailure Flexural Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear Shear

RSB OB1 25 33 OB2 28 38 OB3 53 39 SB1 29 19 SB2 31 33 SB3 30 37 RB1 53 23 RB2 29 32 RB3 30 41 Strengthofbeamswithopenings:

21 4 3 15 9 3

AsshownintheFigure5, thestrengthandstiffnessbothreducedinthebeamswithopenings. The ultimate loads of beams with openings and solid beam are evaluated to find out the influence of opening at the shear zone. It can be seen that reduction in ultimate load (Ru) increasedastheopeningsizeincreaseandvaryto6percentasweincreaseopeningsizefor three times. For the initial crack load the variation is 28% as we increase the opening for threetimes.TheFigure4(a),4(b)and4(c)showstheultimatefailurepatternofsolidbeam
InternationalJournalofCivilandStructuralEngineering Volume2Issue1 2011


Strengtheningandrehabilitationofreinforcedconcretebeamswithopening , SubhajitMondal,J.N.Bandyapadhya ChandraPalGautam

andbeamwithopening.ThecolumnsixofTable3indicatesthefailurepatternofsolidbeam andbeamwithopening.Thefailuremodechangesduetosmallsizeopeningalso.Thisshows animportantdifferenceinbehaviorofsolidbeamandbeamwithopening.



Strengthofsolidbeams AsshownintheFigure6,strengthofthestrengthenedbeamincreaseforsmallopening.The beamswithlargeopeningdonotshowmucheffectiveness.TheTable3,showthestrengthof strengthen beam increased 21 percent for the beam with small opening only. Increase in strength for large opening varying threeto four percent. For such cases the GFRP does not
InternationalJournalofCivilandStructuralEngineering Volume2Issue1 2011


Strengtheningandrehabilitationofreinforcedconcretebeamswithopening , SubhajitMondal,J.N.Bandyapadhya ChandraPalGautam

show much effectiveness. All the three strengthened beams fails due failure at shear. The Single layerGFRP increasedthe loadcarryingcapacity but itis noteffectivetochangethe failure pattern. Table 3, indicates the failure pattern of solid beam and beam with opening. TheFigure4(d)and4(e)showsfailurepatternofstrengthenedbeam.

Figure6:LoadversusDeflectionatCentralPointofBeam Strengthofrehabilitatedbeam As mentioned earlier the three strengthened beams are wrapped with FRP layer before applyinganyloadonthem.Therespectiveloadsatinitialcrackandultimatefailureload(Wi andWu )asobtainedfromtheexperimentalinvestigationarefurnishedinTable2andtable3. Thegainin strengthofstrengthened beam iscalculatedas[(strengthofstrengthened beams withopeningsstrengthofbeamswithsameopeningwithoutFRPlayer)/(strengthofbeam withopeningwithoutFRPlayer.)].Figure7showstheloadversusdeflectionofrehabilitated beam. ItisseenthatRi andRu areprogressivelyincreasingexceptfortheRi valueofSB3,sucha trend of monotonic increase of both Ri and Ru values indicates the increasing influence of openingsizeofthreebeams.ItisconjecturedthathumanerrorofnotingthevalueofWi in caseofSB3isthemainreasonofdeviationfromthenormaltrend. It is worth mentioning that all the three beams have the initial crack at the flexural zone though they fail in shear ultimately. The increasing value of (Ru Ri)from 8.7 to 6.95 indicates the effect of opening prominently. While at the smallest opening this value is negative indicating lowervalueofRu thanthecorrespondingvalueofRi. Furtherthe lower value of Ru of SB1 is due to the value of ultimate strength of SB1 closed to that of solid beam.Thisshowstheeffectivenessofwrappingincaseofsmallopening. The effect of wrapping as observed from the calculated Gu values are seen to be the maximumof21.15%fortheSB1havingsmallestopeningsize.Thegainabruptlydecreases to4.16%and3.15%respectivelyforSB2andSB3clearlyreflectingtheinfluenceofbigger openinginsuchgains.

InternationalJournalofCivilandStructuralEngineering Volume2Issue1 2011


Strengtheningandrehabilitationofreinforcedconcretebeamswithopening , SubhajitMondal,J.N.Bandyapadhya ChandraPalGautam

Figure7:LoadversusDeflectionatCentralPointofBeam DeflectionPatternofBeamswithOpenings Figure 8, shows a typical deflection curve of all three beams with openings. It is observed thatsolidbeam(SB)undergoeslessdeformationthanbeamswithopenings(OB1,OB2and OB3)asshowninFigure5.ThedeflectionsofbeamsOB1, OB2andOB3 aremorebothnear theopeningandatthemidspan. A comparative study of the location of maximum deflection of the solid beam and beams withopeningsshowsthatlocationofthemaximumdeflectionofbeamswithopeningsshifts fromthemidspan(locationofmaximumdeflectionofthesolidbeam)toapointwhichisin betweencentreofthebeamandcentreofopening.ThebeamwithFRPwrappingshowsmore deflection at middle point than those at other two points. This indicates that due to FRP wrapping,flexuralstiffnessandtheshearresistanceofbeamswithopeningsincrease.

Figure8:TypicalDeflectionofBeamwithOpening Ultimateloadversusopeningsize Figure9,showstheultimateloadwithincreasingopeningofthethreecategoryof beamsviz., beams with openings only, strengtehned beams and rehabilitated beams.It is observed that solidbeamcarriedanultimateloadof156kN.Whileallthebeamscarryarounnd100kNfor theopeningsizeof200 mmto300mm.Foropeningupto100mstrengthened beamcaries maximumloadof126kNfollowedbyrehabilitatedbeams(120kN)andfinallybeamswith 100openingnearly100kN.

InternationalJournalofCivilandStructuralEngineering Volume2Issue1 2011


Strengtheningandrehabilitationofreinforcedconcretebeamswithopening , SubhajitMondal,J.N.Bandyapadhya ChandraPalGautam


FailureofBeams In these experimental investigation four types of beams are tested viz. solid beam, beams with openings, strengthened beams and rehabilitated beams. It is worth mentioning thatthe referencesolidbeamfailsinflexurewhereasotherthreetypesofbeamshaveshearfailurein allthecases.Figure4presentsthefailurepatternsofOB1,OB2,SB1andSB3respectively. TheOB2beamdevelopsdiagonal cracksatthetopandbottomcornersaroundtheopening. Withthepropagationofthesecracksthebeamfinallyfailsinshear(Figure4(c)).Incaseof strengthenedbeamsdiagonalcracksalsodevelopedinthetopandbottomcornersaroundthe opening though the beams are wrapped with FRP layer. This FRP layer have a confining effect which helps to increase the failure load to some extent however this beams also displays debonding of FRP layer leading to their tearing along the diagonal cracks and beamsfinallyfailsinshear. ContributionofGFRPinShearStrengthening ExistingresearchonbeamwithopeningshowthatshearforcecarriedbythebottomchordVb (Kennedyetal.(1992)) Ab Ib V b = V Ab I b + At I t Where =Crosssectionalareasofbottomandtopchords. =bw xhb Atw = bw x ht, Moments of inertia of top and bottom chords, about centroidal axes respectively. V=Totalshearforce, =Shearforceatbottomchordandtopchord NowshearforcecarriedbytopchordwillbeVt,where Vt=VVb Now for strengthened and rehabilitated beam the shear force carried by GFRP Vgfrp, where Vgfrp= Totalshearforce(Vb +Vt)).
InternationalJournalofCivilandStructuralEngineering Volume2Issue1 2011


Strengtheningandrehabilitationofreinforcedconcretebeamswithopening , SubhajitMondal,J.N.Bandyapadhya ChandraPalGautam

Therefore, this experiment may lead to calculate the shear capacity of the beam and to understandthecontributionofGFRPtostrengthenedandrehabilitatedthebeamwithopening. From this investigation it is found that GFRP contributes significantly for in shear strengthening forbeam withsmallopeningonly forbothcasesstrengthenandrehabilitated. EfficiencyofGFRPforrehabilitatedislessthanstrengthenedbeam. 4.Conclusion The following conclusions are derived on the basis of testing of one solid beam and three beamswithoneopeningintheshearzone. (i) FRP wrapping around the opening of the beams with 200 and 300 opening width, showsinitialcracksinflexuralzoneinsteadofcracksneartheopening. (ii)FRPcanbeusedtostrengthenandrehabilitatethebeamswithsmallopeningonly. (iii)FRPdoesnotshowthesameefficiencyforstrengthenedandrehabilitatedbeams. (iv)Beams with FRP wrapping displays debonding of FRP layer leading totheirtearing alongthediagonalcracks. (v) Thereductionininitialcrackload(Ri)ismuchinfluencedwithsizeofopening. (vi)Reductionsinultimateloadcarryingcapacity(Ru)arenotmuchinfluencedwiththe sizeoftheopeninginarangeinbetween200mmand300mm. (vii) Beamswithlargeropeningthefailurearegovernedbytheopeningsize.FRPdoes notincreasetheultimateloadcarryingcapacityofthesebeams.

(viii) Thebeamswithopeningsonlyshowsthemaximumdeflectionatapointwhichis in between the middle point of beam and middle point of opening instead of maximumdeflectionatcentralpointofsolidbeam. (ix)An unstrengthened beam with100 mm opening width and with a heightof 0.38the beamdepthreducethebeamcapacityby33%. (x)Anunstrengthened beamopeningwith100 mm openingheightandwithawidthof 0.15thebeamlengthreducesthebeamcapacityby39%. Further a large number of researches are required to understand the FPP strengthening technique for beam with large opening, rehabilitation of beam using FRP and also to understandtheirfailuremechanism.

InternationalJournalofCivilandStructuralEngineering Volume2Issue1 2011


Strengtheningandrehabilitationofreinforcedconcretebeamswithopening , SubhajitMondal,J.N.Bandyapadhya ChandraPalGautam

Acknowledgement This study was conducted at Structural Engineering Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering,IndianInstituteofTechnology,Kharagpur(India)andIwouldliketothankthe membersinthelaboratoryforprovidingassistanceinspecimenfabricationandtesting. 5.References 1. Abadlla, H. A., Torkey, A. M., Haggag, H. A. and AbuAmira, A. F. (2003)Design against cracking at opening in reinforced concrete beams strengthened with composite sheets.Journalof CompositeStructures(ElsevierLtd.),60(2),pp197204. 2.ASTMD7565, GuidelinesforTensiletestFRP. 3. Chaallal, A., Nollet, M. J. and Perranton. (1998) Shear strengthening for beams by externallybondedsideCFRPstrips.Journal of CompositeConstruction,2(2), pp111113. 4.Chajes,M.J.,Janusz,T.F.,Mertz,D.R.,Thomson,T.A.Jr.andFinch,W.W.Jr.(1995) Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using externally applied composite fabrics.Structural Journal(ACI),92(3),pp295303. 5.Collins, F. and Ropper, H.(1990) Laboratory investigation of shear repair of reinforced concretebeamsloadedinflexure,MaterialsJournal (ACI),97(2), pp149159. 6. IS: 102621982 Recommended Guidelines for Concrete Mix DesignBureau ofIndian Standards,NewDelhi. 7.IS:4562000,PlainandReinforcedConcreteCodeofPracticeBureauofIndian Standards,NewDelhi.. 8.J.G.Teng,J.F.Cher,S.T.Smith,FRPstrengthenedRCstructurebyLamPublishersJohn WileyandSons,Ltd. 9. Kennedy, J.B. and Abdalla, H.A., (1992) Static response of prestressed girders with openings,JournalofStructural Engg.ASCE,118(2), pp 488504. 10.Michel,J.Chajes,Ted.F.Januszka,Dennis, R.Maertz,Theodore,A.,ThomsonJr.and Willam, W. Finch Jr.,(1995) Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using externallyappliedcompositefabricsStructuralJournal (ACI),2(3),pp 295303. 11. Talgstan B., (1996)Plate bonding, strengthening of existing concrete structures with epoxy bonded plates of steel or fibre reinforced plastics, International Journal of Fracture 82,pp253266. 12.Teng,J.G,Lam,L.andChen,J.F.,(2004)ShearstrengtheningofRCbeamswithFRP composites,NewMaterialsinConstruction(WileyInterscience),6(3), pp173184. 13. Triantafillou, T.C., (1998) Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using epoxybondedFRPcomposites,ACIStructuralJournal, 95(2),pp10715.

InternationalJournalofCivilandStructuralEngineering Volume2Issue1 2011


Strengtheningandrehabilitationofreinforcedconcretebeamswithopening , SubhajitMondal,J.N.Bandyapadhya ChandraPalGautam

14. Uji, K.(1992) Improving shear capacity of existing reinforced concrete member by applyingcarbonfibersheets,Transaction ofJapanConcreteInstitute, 14, pp253266.

InternationalJournalofCivilandStructuralEngineering Volume2Issue1 2011